Comments

I'm looking at a 95 avenger to buy from my neighbor, although i do not know much maintenece wise about dodges. If anyone could tell me if it is easy or if they have any mechanical problems with them or otherwise, it would be a big help. thanks.

the avenger shared a combination of mitsubishi and chrysler components. However the drive train on the both the 4 and 6cyl were mostly chrysler I believe. The 2.5L 6cyl was not used in any mitsubishi that I can think of and the 2.0L 4cyl was the same motor as in the dodge neon which was also chrysler built.

In a nutshell, this is not a car I would personally want to take a chance on owning. I have heard numerous horror stories. This is definitely a hit or miss automobile.If the price is right however, it may be worth a shot. Otherwise, I personally would not pay anywhere near book value for this car.

'95 Avenger ES was offered with the Mitsu 2.5L six and was only available with the Chrysler 41TE four-speed automatic.

The V6 is a reliable engine, by most all accounts, though it's output, for its displacement, is not impressive. It is smooth enough, not prone to leaks, and has a fairly pleasing growl above 4,000rpms.

The 41TE tranny was problematic for Chrysler, until about '98. Be wary of leaks, which usually begin to manifest themselves at or around 70K miles. Main suspect the forward oil pump seal. Reapir of that item will cost between $1700 and $2200. If you don't mind a red spot on the garage floor, many people have logged substantial miles with a leaking seal, with no loss of performance, though the fluid level must then be watched.

The only way to get a 5-speed was to opt for the 2.0L four. If there are no signs of oil leaks, you should be fine, but make sure to ask if the head-gasket was ever replaced.

Avengers were notorious for warping front rotors as well. This can be said of many makes and models, but the factory rotors, if still on, should be replaced with upgrades at the first brake job. No serious cornering can be accomplished with the OEM rotors.

Undeniably some of the best sheetmetal any coupe ever wore, the Avenger is a hot-looking car, even now. It is a modest performer, but has the disticnt advantage of being comfortable for four, and capable of multi-tasking, due to a sedan's worth of space.

The '95 is not a car to take chances on. If you want it, have it inspected top to bottom by a great mechanic. The '98 model year is a much better gamble, regardless of powertrain choice.

What level are you looking at, and how many miles are on it? Can't price without that info...

Unless you like having a vehicle that breaks down. While nice-looking, as others have said, it is a modest performer, to say the least. What is more important is that it, like all Chrysler products (or Mitsu) is a piece of crap. Trust me, I own a Dodge (for another nine months -- I'm counting down) and I have read extensively about the brands. They are junk. Period. Chrysler = nice styling, roomy interiors, low price, but NO QUALITY OR RELIABILITY.

While the price is not out of line, the miles are too high, and the 4-cylinder mated to the automatic is the worst combo for the car. It takes the performance from acceptable to downright depressing. Mind you, the engine is certainly capable of more miles, but other components will start to fail by this point. Also, a '95 41TE with 130K miles is not a bet to take under any circumstances.

Anecdotal advice is meaningless from someone who knows little about the car, as is the case with some of the above posts.

A '98 or later Avenger, as I said, would be a much better bet. QC at Mitsu and Chryler started to improve dramatically in '97, just as design did in '95.

I'm sure you're not referring to my advice as "anecdotal", since I own a '96 neon with the same basic four banger. And I have a friend who has a Sebring that has even more parts in common with the Avenger (basically the same car in that case). Check Consumer Reports for the reliability of these models (hint: look for the black dots). It's a known fact that Chrysler builds unreliable cars. Deny the facts if you like. A guy asked for opinions on a '95 Avenger, and I'm just warning him not to buy something that is most likely to be unreliable and of very poor quality. I speak from personal, first-hand experience. What the guy buys, of course, is up to him and at his own risk. As far as quality control improving dramatically (if at all) in '97 at Chrysler and Mitsu: keep dreaming. They still build crap. Do your reliability research, pal.

Your personal experience with '96 Neon has a much bearing on the reliability of a '95 Avenger as does my experience with a '98 Caravan. Little to none.

Your are welcome to your opinion that all Chryslers are crap, provided you label it as opinion or provide supporting evidence. And since, IIRC, the very rag you tout recommends more than one of the Chrysler family, you obviously can't do the latter.

This poster asked for specific information about a specific car with which I have experience, and I posted specific valid concerns which will hopefully help in the decision-making process, not some BS about all Chryslers and Mitsus are crap because you loathe your Neon.

I will reiterate: due to the miles, the drivetrain combo, and the history of the 41TE prior to '98, I would pass on this car. Specifically.

Don't be a dipwad.

BTW, I'm very seriously considering the Sportcross. I'm gonna ditch the coupe in about 22 months, and the IS looks like the best candidate. Did you drive it yet? You like the 17" wheels with summer tires or the all-season 16"s?

Since you do little or no reliability research, you obviously have no idea that reliability tends to be very consistent between all models of a specific make. That is, all Toyota and Honda models tend to be very reliable, whereas, all Chryslers and Mitsus tend to be very unreliable. So my experience with the neon (which shares a lot of parts with the Avenger) is very relevant, as is my friend's Sebring. Another note: CR recommends cars with at least average quality. I only buy cars rated above average or excellent (since the neon, which I only loathe because it is a piece of crap - it is as decent looking, peppy, and comfy as the day we bought it 6 years ago). The Chryslers that CR recommends are rated only average (other Chryslers are rated worse). SO, Chrysler's cars' reliability ranges from poor to average. I look for good to excellent. I gave you CR as my supporting evidence, along with relevant personal experience.

Although I will give you credit for telling him to PASS on the car, you should refrain from labeling others' opinions (which are meant only to help) as BS. And you should certainly not call other people names (how old are you?). A-hole.

Now that we got that out, yes, I did test drive an IS300 5 sp. The 17" wheels are an absolute must, in both a functional and aesthetic sense. They look a million times better than the 16 inchers. If you get the 16", it ruins the performance of the car totally (acceleration, handling, braking, etc). See Car & Driver's road test from a couple months ago for more on IS tire selection if that isn't enough.

So you basically still don't know poop from shinola about the '95 Avenger, aside from the four-banger, which is one of remarkably few components shared with your Neon.

I've seen CR. On numerous occasions. Perhaps you should consider revisting it yourself.

Oh, and you're right about the name-calling. Sorry. That was at least as juvenile as lumping all Chryslers and Mitsus ever made together and calling them crap. Kind of like calling all VWs crap, or all GMs crap, or all Nissans crap. Your opinion is valid to you, and should be set forth as opinion and not fact, which it frankly is not.

You give ME credit for voting to pass? Thanks so very much. Considering I gave specific mechanical reasons to avoid that particular car, rather than ignominious rantings aimed at an entire company of which you have owned one example, that's the least you could do.

Now that WE got THAT out, I drove the Sportcross with the 17"s, but had no opportunity to drive with the all-seasons. You can barely find ONE Sportcross on a lot around here (SF Bay) let alone a few for comparison's sake. Yeah, I read the blurb in C&D too, but reading and doing (especially with C&D) are far too often two vastly different things. I was hoping perhaps you'd sampled both. My preference leans quite naturally toward the 17"s, just curious about other impressions.

It's a winner in my book. The only other one I like right now is the 325. Well, that and the Audi.

Last thought: Leather/Escaine? I prefer the Escaine myself, thought I wonder about wear...

Another note on the 2.0L four: At 130K miles, the timing belt should have been changed TWICE by now. It is important to check on that. Also, the timing belt pulleys should have been changed at the same intervals. It's a quirk of the 2.0L.

Also, after about 100K miles, the motor mounts may be pretty well shot (true of most cars really). This is more prevelant in manual-equipped ones, and depends somewhat on driving habits. It won't affect performance much, but it will make for a rougher idle, and shifts will be much more noticeable.

If you were a tuner, or a tuner wannabe, this could be a fun engine. With stock rods, pistons, crank, head and cams, the SOHC version has been played up to over 300hp at the crank. Not sure about how far the DOHC can be taken, but I'm impressed!

Again though, I wouldn't take this particular car (or ANY used car,for that matter) on without a whole lot of service and maintenance documentation and a thorough inspection. Even then, that tranny would make me skittish!

I know enough about a Dodge Avenger in order to feel comfortable not recommending one. And, yes, whether you like it or not, Dodges and Mitsus are, in general, not reliable vehicles. You can argue all you want. We'll all appoint you the resident 1995 Dodge Avenger expert. Maybe you can run [unopposed] for President of the National 1995 Dodge Avenger Fanclub.

I don't need to revisit CR; I remember what I read.

Lumping all Chryslers and Mitus together into a category known as crap is not juvenile; it's fact. Again, argue all you want. You are the only one with juvenile postings here. I actually couldn't care any less about a Dodge Avenger of any model year. (And I wouldn't call all Nissans crap - but I would call all GM cars crap - you can add that to my "juvenile" lumping of auto makes that are crap. Don't get me wrong, my uncle's '98 6 spd Corvette is a great car, but, much as he loves it, he will be glad to tell you about the many problems it has had, including three serious ones.) Despite what you may think in your little mind - and you know nothing about me - I don't give out advice on cars unless I have adequate knowledge of them. Why don't you worry about your own opinions/advice and not critique others'. 12 year olds like yourself shouldn't be giving out car advice anyway.

IS: I had no interest in driving the 16" wheels. They look horrible and I knew the performance would be significantly diminished. I like the Ecsaine best (holds your butt in place better than full leather), but we will be going with cloth - we will be hauling two kids with us by then.

"I know enough about a Dodge Avenger in order to feel comfortable not recommending one..."

Clearly, from your posts, you know nothing whatsoever about the Avenger, and alarmingly little about your own Neon.

"I actually couldn't care any less about a Dodge Avenger of any model year..."

And yet you feel not only compelled but qualified to give an earnest enquirer advice on one. Now there's a mature attitude.

"Despite what you may think in your little mind..."

A utter paragon of comportment.

"I don't give out advice on cars unless I have adequate knowledge of them..."

Well, that certainly shows from all your detailed, fact-filled pointers on the '95 Avenger in question. Truly, I am humbled by your intense knowledge of all things automotive.

"12 year olds like yourself shouldn't be giving out car advice anyway..."

As most 12 year-olds have a firmer grasp of the distinction between useful fact and agitated hyperbole than you appear to, I absolutely relish the compliment.

Based on this sampling of the supreme quality of advice given, I shall get me to a Lexus lot and try out the 16"s.

Some advice for you, since I have some other experience you have yet to garner: it's one hell of a lot easier to get formula, spit-up, vomit, juice, string cheese and Pokemon fruit snacks off full leather than it is out of cloth.

Resale's generally better on a "lux/sport" with leather, too. Generally. But then, I'm sure you already knew all that, after all, it's in CR...

1. You, not knowing me, don't know how much I know about an Avenger or about a neon - you only know as much [about me] as I say.

2. I don't feel it is necessary to go into specific mechanical issues (which I never claimed to have) of a car that is LIKELY to not be of average or better reliability. Besides, you already wowed us all with your in-depth, mechanical knowledge of a car that was a total market failure.

3. The fact that I don't care about Avengers has nothing to do with whether I would proffer advice on whether or not to buy one.

4. Not impressed with your efforts to impress/sound intelligent by using "big college words".

5. You are the one who does not know what a useful fact is: on giving advice to someone who does not own an Avenger but is thinking about buying one, pointing out the mechancial stuff as you did isn't much benefit. Experiences from owners and friends of owners of the same and similar cars is more beneficial at this point - that is, the consideration stage of buying. Your advice would be better served at the shopping stage, after one has decided to look for a certain model.

6. If, when you are old enough to get your license, you test drive a Lexus with the 16" wheels, you will come to find that their performance is less than that of the 17" tires. If you know anything about tires, you could tell this just by looking at the tire designation.

7. You don't know anything about me; you don't know what I do or don't know. I DO know that leather is easier to clean than cloth. That is not the reason for choosing cloth. My wife and I want cloth because leather gets hot and we don't want to burn our kids' butts when they are old enough to be out of child seats. And we plan on keeping the car for a very long time, which is also why I am not concerned about the higher resale value of leather (another fact that I DID know) that we will be passing on.

"You, not knowing me, don't know how much I know about an Avenger or about a neon - you only know as much [about me] as I say..."

You, having a remarkable opportunity, since the is a thread about (get this) AVENGERS, consistently show, with escalating vitriol, that you know nothing whatsoever about them, aside from the fact that they're virtually identical to Sebrings of the same years. Since you admittedly have no interest in the cars, why would you bother posting in the first place?

"I don't feel it is necessary to go into specific mechanical issues (which I never claimed to have) of a car that is LIKELY to not be of average or better reliability..."

Let's just see what the poster asked for: "If anyone could tell me if it is easy or if they have any mechanical problems with them or otherwise, it would be a big help..."

So you really don't care what the poster wanted, you just want to rant for fun. Your choice.

"The fact that I don't care about Avengers has nothing to do with whether I would proffer advice on whether or not to buy one."

And nobody said you had to! If you at least know what you're talking about, you can reamin as detatched as you please, and no man objecting!

"Not impressed with your efforts to impress/sound intelligent by using 'big college words'..."

Oh, I haven't even touched the college bag. Why would I? You seem to find sophomore high school vocabulary daunting enough.

"You are the one who does not know what a useful fact is: on giving advice to someone who does not own an Avenger but is thinking about buying one, pointing out the mechancial stuff as you did isn't much benefit. Experiences from owners and friends of owners of the same and similar cars is more beneficial at this point - that is, the consideration stage of buying. Your advice would be better served at the shopping stage, after one has decided to look for a certain model..."

I can't say what's more amusing: the fact that you actually wrote that, or the thought that you might actually believe any of it! The poster HAS decided to look at a certain model, and asked for issues related to it. How exactly is pointing out specific mechanical issues that should be foremost in mind when assessing the viability of a candidate not of benefit. I'm to assume that a blanket (and erronious) opinion of "all Chryslers are crap" is somehow more helpful?

"If, when you are old enough to get your license, you test drive a Lexus with the 16" wheels, you will come to find that their performance is less than that of the 17" tires. If you know anything about tires, you could tell this just by looking at the tire designation..."

Apparently, you know just as much about tires as you do about Avengers. I have never questioned whether the 17" package would offer greater performance over the 16" package as offered. I merely asked if you'd driven it equipped as such. That's all.

"You don't know anything about me; you don't know what I do or don't know. I DO know that leather is easier to clean than cloth. That is not the reason for choosing cloth. My wife and I want cloth because leather gets hot and we don't want to burn our kids' butts when they are old enough to be out of child seats. And we plan on keeping the car for a very long time, which is also why I am not concerned about the higher resale value of leather (another fact that I DID know) that we will be passing on..."

I've schlepped two young'uns around on (gray) leather for six years now. It's routinely in the hundreds out here in the summer, and nobody's ever burned a butt. However, not wanting to burn baby butts is commendable.

Your kids, once you finally have them, are going to be in child seats for about five years, maybe longer, the way new laws are proliferating. A Corolla-based sedan will be less than comfortable when the first is about two years old. Unless you aren't planning on this as your primary family car, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you'll be shopping again a lot sooner than you think.

Then again, it IS silly for me to try to give you any advice, especially unwanted! You seem to know so very much already!

You don't know the depth of my knowledge - you don't know me. You only know what I DO say; not what I don't. You obviously can't read well, because you obviously didn't get my point that, while I don't personally have interest in Avengers, that doesn't mean I wouldn't attempt to kindly offer advice to someone who is considering one.

I do really care what the poster wanted; I did not post in order to "rant for fun" (that is what you have been doing). (In fact, I find arguing with you is not fun - but you started it; instead of just offering your own advice, you feel you must compensate for your own feelings of inadequacy by belittling others.) Once again, you demonstrate that you are an ignorant a-hole by making assumptions about people you don't know. Insulting my vocabulary with no basis - another sign of you being an ignorant prick.

The poster is asking about a specific car because he is considering it; he didn't say he was set on getting an Avenger. When I shop for a car, I don't care to know all the specific details in the beginning. I just want to know whether it is reliable in general. Or general areas where such a model could be prone to problems.

Apparently, you are too stupid to even remember what you asked because you didn't just ask if I had driven the IS with 16" wheels; you asked if I LIKED the 17" or 16". And I politely answered you. I actually know a lot about tires (and, no, I don't claim to be an expert on everything like you) but I guess I better not get into that with you, or anything else. Apparently, you think you are an expert on everything in life, from vocabulary to Avengers to tires to kids. Too bad you aren't an expert on human relations. I think you post just because you like to argue, insult, and be a jackass. In those areas, you have succeeded. I didn't come here to argue. Whether you like it or not, I just came by to offer a solicited opinion on a vehicle. You don't get to be the judge of whether or not others are "worthy" to post an opinion.

As for the IS, my wife prefers cloth, and that is fine with me. I don't insist on leather. And you are right on one thing: I don't want - or need - your advice.

"Whether you like it or not, I just came by to offer a solicited opinion on a vehicle. You don't get to be the judge of whether or not others are "worthy" to post an opinion."

So we finally get to the point that you have no facts to post, but only your opinions, to which you are duly entitled, as I said from the start, so long as they are framed as what they so obviously are: opinions. I have never sat in judgement on your right or ability to offer an opinion.

"I do really care what the poster wanted..."

Claptrap. He asked for mechanical issues on a '95 Avenger. Even after 23 total posts on the thread, you still haven't offered the least bit of factual info on a Dodge Avenger, other than it had a stablemate from Chrysler and you couldn't care less about it. Very useful.

"I don't claim to be an expert on everything like you..." I don't claim to be an "expert" on anything germane to automotive topics, but I certainly have relevant facts at my disposal on this particular topic, don't I? That's something you haven't offered in the least.

Rather than return with any factual information on the subject matter general, specific or otherwise, you choose to resort to name calling and other third-grade-level taunts.

I've never posted in the Miata topic. Know why? I've never owned one, worked on one or even read extensively about them. I have nothing to offer in an in-depth discussion on Miatas other than they look good and have power going to the correct wheels. That's why I don't post in the Miata thread. You keep saying I don't know what you know. Well, you're in a thread about Avengers; why don't you just show us all what you do know!

Sorry it didn't work out, but this wasn't exactly a golden opportunity.

A '98 or later would be, as I said, a much better bet, and if you prefer not to have a manual (I prefer the manual in this car), try to get an ES with the 2.5L six. By '98, the 4-speed automatic is pretty darn bug-free. Also, the timing belts on the six are good to 105K miles.

Since I do care about what the poster wanted, I won't waste space arguing with you anymore. But I did post a fact that Dodge vehicles are, in general, not reliable and not well-built. Having owned a Dodge and knowing others who have [owned Sebrings, the mechanical twin], and seeing consistent data in print to this effect, I believe this is a general statement of truth. Deny it all you like, whale-bait. And it was YOU that started the name-calling and "third-grade taunts" - once again, you have no memory. Go back and read the early posts.

Good luck to you, the Avenger-seeker. I honestly hope you get one that is trouble-free. For your sake, I hope Chrysler quality has improved, even if the hard data isn't showing that to be the case.

PS - you want facts? See the 4/00 issue of Consumer Reports (2000 was the last model year they made the Avenger). You don't have to trust my opinions or stated facts. Trust all the people who reply to CR's annual auto survey - all the owners of Avengers who report on them. I'll save you the flipping time - it's on page 42. The Avenger's reliability gets a black dot - the worst rating (it means "much worse than average"). It also got a black dot for [owner] satisfaction. These are the OWNERS making these ratings. I quote, "Reliability has been poor. This is the last year for the Avenger/Sebring pair."

From the 2000 CR Buying Guide, page 277, "Used Cars to Avoid": 95-97 Dodge Avenger (they sold so few of them in '98 that CR had insufficient data for the 98 model year & at the time of publication, the survey for '99 models was not complete. Also note '95 was the debut year, so for all years they had sufficient data, it was a used car to avoid.) On page 286, you can see a breakdown of its reliability data. Most troublesome areas: electrical & [body] integrity, then hardware, then brakes, then ignition, and then paint/trim. All of these areas received below average marks. All but the last two areas received the dreaded black dots. Again, these are owners' statistics. Strangely, these are the same problem areas our neon has had so much trouble with. But I guess you would call that coincidence. Whatever.

And you had to go digging to find a two-friggin'-year-old copy of your beloved CR to do it, because you don't actually know ANYTHING! It comes to the same conclusion I offered numerous posts back: Pass. Imagine that! Seems a '95-'97 is a risky proposition: well, whaddaya knowbout dat?

Conveniently, your bathroom reading search contains nothing on the years I suggest looking at. Now THERE'S a coincidence. Your Neon shares an engine block with the Avenger/Sebring, and that's about it, BTW, so call it whatever YOU want.

You could try Allpar, and go to the owner's web ring, so you can find some real info on the cars from real owners who actually know something about their cars. It's much more illuminating than CR, where broken stereo knobs and blown fuses get listed as "electical issues". Better yet, try dirtying your tiny nail-bitten fingers on a car once in a while. But you don't care, do you? Nope.

Why? Well to put it in terms you'd use yourself and therefore understand, because you're a know-it-all dickless loser whose entire pathetic life is lived in the pages of old issues of magazines. The IS should be a perfect long-term car for you. See, to have children (your own at least), you'd actually have to have a set of reproductive organs, as well as the brains to actually use them. So it pretty much looks like you won't ever have to worry about growing out of a Corolla, unless you adopt.

Shifty Joe: after you delete all the BS posts from this thread, feel free to e-mail me my notice. It's been ages since we've talked.

Just the response I expected! - "Finally some relevant data!" Actually, all I did was get page numbers - this data was what I based my statements on all along (and I didn't hide the print source - I said it was CR). I didn't have to go digging - they're in a magazine rack in my closet. And, not that it matters, but CR is not beloved - I let the subscription run out a year ago. I had to get the year 2000 issues because that was the last year they made the POS Avenger. I explained why there was no data on the '98 and '99 model years. Any fool who wants to risk buying an Avenger of those years can feel free to do so. Its reliability history speaks for itself.

I figured after [you] having to admit that it was relevant data (as I spoke of all along - just now getting page numbers to satisfy you), you would then: A. attempt to attack the credibility of CR (and fail miserably), and then: B. having bombed at that, you would then launch a vicious, immature, verbal assault on me personally. I don't take it personally because you don't know me and because you have just shown yourself to be the jerk I said you were all along (with your name-calling, arguing, assumptions, etc). I think most people would say the engine block is a very significant shared part, if not the most important. After all, that IS what makes the car move (its sole purpose in life) - at least, from my limited automotive knowledge , I think it is the engine that makes the car move.

CR readers, some of which are undoubtedly mechanics, don't have to be the "under the hood" types to be able to point out obvious problems when they occur. You lose any credibility when you refer to CR data as not real. Like anyone is going to believe some website over a respected publication. We all believe everything we read on the web . BTW, I don't bite my nails, if you really want to know.

I'm not going to respond to your silly name-calling. I will just say that I have been happily married to a 5'1" 103lb beauty for six years. We have a beautiful 2 year old daughter and our second child is due in January. I never planned on buying an IS, thinking it was too small, until my wife test drove a midsize Accord and was not comfortable piloting something that large. Since, after having a kid for two years, we have never had a problem fitting her stuff in the trunk of the neon, I figure we are safe with a similar size trunk in the IS (I have a truck, too, anyway). Plus, she loved the car and all its standard safety features.

To the host: if you feel any or all of my posts are irrelevant and/or inappropriate, please feel free to delete them as well. Thanks.

Well, since Shifty appears to be on vacation, you can continue your idiotic diatribe for a while longer, and I will respond in kind, so that you'll comprehend.

A) After all your silly generalizing, you actually scurried off to find some hard data to support what I'd already suggested to Avenger: PASS! I never once said he should take the car. If you'd had the brains to "find the page numbers" in the first place, and post the relevant data on the car in question, there would be nothing to discuss. I don't dispute the CR statistics, nor their recommendation. The fact that they lump their data into broad categories is irrefutable, though obviously necessary for reporting purposes.

As I said, I never disputed the reliability, or lack thereof, of the '95 Avenger with you, CR, or anyone else. What your infant mind can't seem to process is that your moronic blanket statement: ...all Chrysler products (or Mitsu)" are crap; and your insistance that it is fact, is MY point of contention (what YOURS is, nobody will ever figure out). Not only is it an OPINION, it is an unsubstantiated one. You still have yet to offer a piece of hard evidence that supports it.

Try something like: "According to the most recent JD Power IQ survey, Chrysler, at 141, as a manufacturer, has more complaints per vehicle than the industry average, which is 133."

See, now THAT'S a fact, as opposed to hyperbole! Can't really argue with that. It certainly does not imply that everything they make is a piece of crap, though. GM, BTW, is above the average, yet Nissan is topped not only by DCX, but Ford and Mitsu, and Mazda appears nowhere in the top fifteen (#15 is Kia, at 212).

Keep trying though. I give your full marks for tenacity. Like a puppy with a wet slipper.

I told you in the beginning that my statement of the unreliability of Chrysler products (Mitsus too) was based on, in part, hard data gleaned from CR. I didn't just read that data for the first time. I got page numbers of data I had already read (years ago) because you were in denial of the facts as I stated them. Most people, unlike you, don't ask for page numbers. I gave you the name of the printed source in the beginning. Normally, that is enough. But you are not normal.

Since "crap" is general negative term, I will rephrase my statement to say that Chrysler and Mitsu cars are generally unreliable. This is backed up by CR (see issues already mentioned). Since we are talking about a Dodge here, you can look at the poor reliability ratings of the other Dodge models on and around the same pages as I gave for the Avenger model. Flip a few pages forward and note the ratings for Honda models and then Toyota models. Note how Honda and Toyota models received a lot of full red and half red dots (better than average - excellent reliability). Then note how Chrysler/Dodge and Mitsu models received many full black and half black dots (below average - much worse than average reliability). From this data, even your feeble mind can safely conclude that reliability tends to be very consistent between the models of a particular make of vehicle. From the facts of years of reliability data, I confidently state that Chrysler products in general are unreliable. As I stated in the beginning. But you mistook it for ranting.

Nissan's ratings have indeed declined. I believe I read something about the JD Power study in the news that said Mazda was included in Ford's ratings, which is why it didn't appear on the list. But you are talking about an Initial Quality study, which is not the same thing as Long Term Reliability.